Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: steders on 31 August 2017, 05:11:53 PM
-
Picked these up as a pdf the other day. Look very interesting BUT;
Its a grid system,
The figures bases all have stats along the back edge (not compulsory obviously)
The rules mention stacking and limits on number of units in a square.
Its a board game.
I don't mind boardgames and I've tinkered with boardgame rules myself for miniatures.
There are some really interesting ideas and I personally like the lack of 'crunch' in the rules (the differences in tanks are fairly minimal) I'm just not sure the way terrain, movement, combat is handled will suit everyone. I'm going to have to play a game. The one thing that really furrowed my brow on first read through is that if a unit uses road movement rather than tactical movement it is 'tilted', it can't do anything else this go. I don't get the rational behind it. Is it a carryover from Blucher?
User avatar
Steders Posts: 3671Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:22 pm
Top
-
Didn't know I couldn't express an opinion. Plus I wasn't having a go just making a statement. And as I said I think there are some things I find really interesting and an awful lot to like. I also want to play a game.
-
Thanks Steders , I,m also interested in these rules and would welcome any comments you may have as you play through them. I believe they require a grid system and that the author recommends a gridded mat in the rule book. We play Blucher, Maurice and Aurelian all by Sam Mustafa and are fans of his rules. I intend to use card counters for my units , we already use them for Maurice, it's almost like moving on a map at times .
-
Pic
-
also bought the rules the other day
I think the rational of tipping some units is to show that they aren't available for tactical action and in the case of road movement is to show the vulnerability of troops in column order (you can almost go from one edge of the table to another but you don't want to leave your troops near the enemy) - at least this is how I've "read" the meaning of it
I think I welcome the square grid, I was tinkering with the idea of converting some rule sets to a grid format for casual games, so that I don't need to hassle about micromanaging the miniatures placing or so that I don't waste that much time with measuring and checking ranges - personal opinion. As an option instead of marking the 4 corners of a square you could dot only the centers an place the miniatures loosely around them, its only a 12X8 grid
I don't like the idea of playing with cards and having the stats like counters of a board game (once again a matter of personal taste) and regarding tipping, I will use some kind of marker to note this instead of treating my minis as magic the gathering cards :)
all and all the rules seem good and simple and I like the idea of the more loose troop classification: a sherman is almost the same as a t34 or a panzerIV
I think the fun part of this will be to recreate some zoomed-in zones of the campaign maps of the old PC game Panzer General
another possible use for these rules is to play them with 6mm miniatures on a very small table (portable game for the holidays)
-
I picked him up as well. I am over halfway through reading them and I find them very interesting. I'm looking forward to getting a game in soon. I do wish it had included more scenarios with historical lists in the book. The website looks like it will add files to update scenarios and historical lists.
-
As above, I think the idea of 'tipping' units in march mode is that they are not able to operate tactically the same turn. Victory Games 'Hells Highway' uses exactly the same mechanism for admin movement, and my copy of the Sandhurst Kriegspiel also differentiates between tactical and non tactical modes at battlegroup level (although I note Rommel doesn't have mech units travelling ten times as fast in admin mode compared to tactical mode!)
Looking forward to reading them and see how they measure up against other operational sets. Big fan of grids, particularly for his level of combat.
-
Played my first game of Rommel on Friday night. Playing the introductory Operation Brevity scenario with my 10mm figures.
It was an enjoyable game - its certainly more towards the board game end of the spectrum than the some free format wargames. But its still a wargame - its not what any of my family (who are keen board gamers) would call a board game.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/cotMKtpDzHMP5nUcbnJ_VnFirj-P4jpBlG_sl_kYB6HT2laKFKOZBOHHfaXdfz-rWyFzSbOoyhm4XY6l94DxfrP1N59jQCxhmv0s6NX5ClCgPbBiyDTKehci0CZok22GREuAsFDYNIXk3qP9_bZDDUbZGWmVsUnow2ItLnboKLN8haBs9HvTwWHLwOTtyH4qVGWryH7PExqF_LAsDN6U5SdScMVpLrOno2QeL57YjKcTmLiDj_vh_motf3KyKAuE1yw7if4FMd9ymtZ1r2uK2MZm8aUgTVxnG-aKnMf2-VPirABQO54YbdaDWn7iuNSkSOyOuYzj4_0WxPB05HiSBZma3p8XgrapR_IKZt2XxVdkJZdlEMcsnpp52e59DafD4NT2dumAPRfRfWv0unLUX2qIJrzsnKEvjk5vZDC6ffS88V83Z28PkLOcndmFQb7ZB_o5JhxbOzXQpdWukujpboeUpLMV2m4_zLxw3RC3DJOf6zkKznu-5Cw2X0PRFNkPRFpEGYBulHsJkNPhWLV2fB1Rt9O-dqD9tHptjP1aQ8ho7f4Z9js0dCXFvReOe5x25XQMhy2Iep79nO8kWvGH2ephPheyzviGNRPfeGHKLk8TscNrv2c9ps4MiYgA0QSu-CIvjp2xH5eqwj6GLxfG4XsRBm4HhnX47Cwn2sD_FbwG87Q=w1183-h786-no)
The tipping mechanism works well to indicate units that have done actions that make them vulnerable - it could just as easily be called 'Disruption' and marked with a counter or similar. Its a common mechanism in many games, and makes sense for units to become tipped after they use Road Movement to move a considerable distance (especially as this is close to the enemy).
The game certainly gives the feel of a large scale action. The main downside is that it didn't feel totally WWII, its quite abstract (due to the scale). It may feel more WWII with more of the Advanced rules to differentiate units.
There is a full AAR over on the Honour forum if you want to peruse it. http://www.sammustafa.com/honour-forums/general-discussion-and-announcements-46/operation-brevity/msg27154/#msg27154
-
We played Rommel again this week, and we all found it a lot better game than the first one last week - I think partly as there are a lot of new concepts and abstraction in the rules, in the first game you spend a lot of time thinking about how things need to work, and probably over-think things.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3pB5qid0Inq2MAZ4cKdjQsiLJzz2uOOi-paQXbTEWug7r4v9JQQAnH6giUVyLW69cVe8-fJ0SE5XvO5nDLTeBJha5bN7EkXBeb46mJTrcsQk_84OvbFXPi7Xz7fW7AsA9OEoFGUFtItKmNOY8Bsio-2efAPk4X2rCE3rPS6ZGxEObRRfZMToxO8tLFFp00kDkF87Do7fnjxzqjBNs821UlZppN1yXz4nKiWTcKEhYlaosjls_xtlMQMk8nssIs_OErX0LwWsVXpDzN0H0mNPINPYSK3P18neDshg50BQii7oppcjhLzUYAKROSQnNhzFNMeg2sAZGZkBBDlmD2w6csPyrO-hosKxWLXBcCGNTrN5x2zGMzdK4TBRNynroDTVOEeB1uQ4ujgIcr78xtkb0tJlClOj1yKRBtCJGQfpMJwCOhcDEYb8Y1PMueoS4yUQjmI8oC-ySG1FQ01qUUMwbBG8H_6rt8KpQH2xXFRP1a-nyJ2_7m4xbFxBff0Ew4cxCcFeNFRvsnkV-5LmxGOXLow_Qr10vOeao8DmX61oPBwvUOLA0j6hb9LRiXQ-bUtZh6iZiRSAG6C-8XRqR74qcMrxFggPRQRTTYdQwB_-BxF8vW9PWWeSkBouuNXU5bYYyM465oOlmJImiosZ_QUWExIesDymovEYK2vM=w1059-h706-no)
But in this second game, we just were able to get on and play. The rules make the game seem strategic. Units that go careering off, end up isolated, hard to activate, and generally not that much use. Which all feels right. But a steady attack with infantry and tanks supporting each other, while unspectacular does keep on grinding forwards and is much more effective over a number of turns.
Definitely glad we gave it another go.
-
Any more thoughts on Rommel as a figure wargame yet?
I like the concept and most of the mechanics but find it really lacking as a figure game. We have had a few short situation tests so far but no full multiplayer games (which is where it needs to be for our group). Each time has left the "why are we bothering with the figures?" question as paramount as actually they don't reflect the composition of the armies
I don't like the lack of variety in troop types, not the fact that a Sherman is a Panzer IV is a T34 etc that works well, but in the fact that you cannot represent anything that is less than a company in strength, so no AA or AT or Engineer platoons to stiffen or support the combat units, No recon armoured cars, no mortars. You just get a standard "oh they are included in the Infantry stats" dismissal.
I am wondering about scrapping the rigid "stacking limit" and using a combat strength per platoon type of approach, similar to that in PanzerKorps. Using the very slick Rommel mechanisms with more realistic feeling and looking armies, or conversely using the lovely PanzerKorps force lists with a user friendly accessible set of game mechanics. I would really like to find a way of playing WW2 games one step higher up the command chain than Spearhead as I have not yet found one that I like and it is the only "gap" I have in WW2 gaming levels from squad skirmish right up to army corps operations.
Somewhere in Rommel I am sure there is a superb Divisional scale game, just can't yet decide how to stop it feeling like a boardgame.
-
In our last game we added in Pioneers, Infantry Support tanks and Massed AT units, and this helped.
Also I think that playing helps - initially we were rather hung up on similar issues, but after playing a couple of games 'got it' as written and where much happier.
It also makes a great multi-player game.
I'm sure you can add in smaller scale stuff, but it would probably complicate and overwhelm the slick mechanisms.
-
Rommel works fine as figure wargame.
At the 1 stand=1 company level, there isn't much difference between a T34 and a Sherman.
Armour differences are modelled, and the tactics board reflects the different armies nicely.
-
Played again - I think our groups 4th game in 5 weeks or so.
Back to the desert - and this was a really good game again. I do think my (and some of the others) misgivings over the first game, where just down to over thinking things as we got our heads around the rule mechanisms, which are naturally a bit different to games representing smaller scale actions.
-
Played a game and I like the mechanics. After a couple of failed attempts to dig out some infantry in a town we just left them and went round.
I Like everything but the squares and the stacking limit which feels very artificial. The squares Make it feel too cold and clinical.
Had a thought about uneven 'squares' like the ones in close combat pc game and the iPad battle of the bulge game. You'd need to make custom sheets or get one of the manufacturers to make one. Would also limit the use of them.
Can't help feeling there is a way to play this game without the squares
-
You probably could play the game without squares, but why would you want to?
You would be slowing the game down and complicating it for no real gain.
The stacking limit and the attack reflects real unit frontages - 3 companies per km is about right.
If you want to attack with more units, you need to do so in waves (and you'd better plan your tactical phases so you can do that).
-
I've retyped this post four times now. It's hard to say negative things about a game without feeling the need to over explain. I've also noticed that as I retyped things to be more clear, I'm also getting more forceful, which isn't ideal.
My basic criticism of the game is that I think the decision making you are engaged in is very artificial and is about managing ops points and pressing the right tactics or event button at just the right time. And at times you'll jump down to the company level to make decisions (like when to use molotov cocktails) and even once per game you can jump down to the company level to make a decision for an enemy company (apparently intercepting signals means you can send a unit off to where it never would have gone).
Hopefully that doesn't overstate things. I feel like you're not really making decisions about the operation but about the special effects if the operation was a movie. Like you don't decide on a plan for your assets, you simply press the asset button the moment you'd like them to show up in that instant. Not for everything, but an awful lot of stuff is contained in the tactic and events you can choose to trigger.
-
I Like everything but the squares and the stacking limit which feels very artificial. The squares Make it feel too cold and clinical.
What kind of ratio did you have to the size of the square to the size of the models within it?
We've played with 12cm squares, and 5x3cm based models, and the models nicely fill the square, which means you don't really think you want to get more troops involved, because there isn't much space for them.
Occasionally when you attack from multiple directions, you feel you could get more troops involved. But that is quite uncommon.
I feel like you're not really making decisions about the operation but about the special effects if the operation was a movie. Like you don't decide on a plan for your assets, you simply press the asset button the moment you'd like them to show up in that instant.
Interesting view - and I can see why you could think that. But its not something I have felt while playing. Its the problem of abstraction and playability. Yes you get the tactic or event when you want it, but you can only play a limited number per turn, and you can only play them a limited number of times before needing to reset. All of these actions cost you Ops points. Yes its abstract, and perhaps it would be more realistic if you planned in your artillery support a turn or two before. But ultimately this would slow the game down, and require a lot more record keeping.
As a group we are really enjoying Rommel, and getting lots of toys on the table that have been in the cupboard far too long.
-
Interesting view - and I can see why you could think that. But its not something I have felt while playing. Its the problem of abstraction and playability. Yes you get the tactic or event when you want it, but you can only play a limited number per turn, and you can only play them a limited number of times before needing to reset. All of these actions cost you Ops points. Yes its abstract, and perhaps it would be more realistic if you planned in your artillery support a turn or two before. But ultimately this would slow the game down, and require a lot more record keeping.
I totally agree. Everything is trade offs. And different people are going to care about different things in a game. It's just what stuck out to me. Like I was deciding when to have the results rather than when to do the thing that causes them.
What Rommel has done is gotten me interested in larger scope games. Both in terms of rules and reading more about divisional and corps level officers and operational staff and the like.
-
Tbh, that sort of abstract decision making is a feature of all command point type C3 systems, you are making decisions about where to locate command effort, which can lead to disjointed actions on the tabletop. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Sam had stuck with his original idea of modelling the events as cards, as it produces much the same effect, but feels more real in some wierd way.
We were just aying the new AIW command and Colours game last night which has separate combat cards, with things analagous to Rommel "events" and it worked really well.
I am slightly dreading trying Rommel with one of our more analytical players, he is gong to blow a mental gasket when faced with twenty different ways to spend his ops each and every turn... he spent long enough agonising over half a dozen cards yesterday.
-
On the Honor forums someone has re-jigged the Command Posts as cards - so if you want to try with cards its fairly easy.
While there are a lot of ways to spend Ops, the key decision is how many you need for tactical phases. Then you probably don't have that many left, so if you want a couple of key attacking or defending tactics, then you have very few left for Events.
-
Oooh, I'll have a look at the cards version.
The dynamic of Ops use are quite clever though, as they the replicate the difference between hasty and prepared attacks and defence. If you want to go swanning off all over the table, you aren't going to be taking any well defended positions.
-
The dynamic of Ops use are quite clever though, as they the replicate the difference between hasty and prepared attacks and defence. If you want to go swanning off all over the table, you aren't going to be taking any well defended positions.
I agree, we have very much found this in our games. If units go off on their own, they rapidly become isolated and become a drain on your Ops Pool. Planning 1 or 2 reinforced attacks works better, but is a bit slower.
Once you have ground down the defences, if you can feed fresh units in, they can suddenly smash through the enemy.
But you can't do this with a quick smash and grab raid, which all feels very appropriate for the scale of the game.
-
Thanks for the pointer to the command cards, they really are excellent. Far more flexible and easy to use than scattering dice all over a piece of paper.
-
Glad you found the cards, and like the look of them. We've not tried them, we moved to dry wipe markers on a laminated sheet within a couple of turns of out first game.
We found with a multi player game that you want to move the command post around a bit to see what tactics and events you have available. Which with dice balanced on a sheet is a problem.
I can see from a logistics point of view why Sam went with the command posts, rather than cards.